Hi all,
I'm relatively new to posting here, but I've been reading and learning for a while now, and I definitely appreciate the assistance that the veterans here provide to the community as a whole.
I'm working (I use that word loosely---it's a hobby really) on a little "documentary" on my family's background. It's more of an extended series of family anecdotes of grandparents and other older relatives telling their stories with some questions posed to help bring up memories. We're aiming to shoot 30+ hours of raw footage over the coming months, and covering seminal experiences in the "old country", the Great Depression, World War II, school, work, etc... It's proving to be a lot of fun. We've also put alot of time in the pre-production phase, coming up with detailed outlines of key life highlights to encourage conversation (but really just to get folks talking, whereupon we quickly shut up and let their stories unravel on their own), acquiring the right equipment, practicing our (non-existant? / limited?) craft, and spreading the work-load (and correlating it with appropriate skill-set) among younger members of the family (such as yours truly).
We're shooting these stories with cherished individuals who are in their mid- to late-80s, so the only true near-term objective is to capture their stories in raw form while we're still able. We're not really concerned right now with post-production, since we can always do that later: capture is key for now. That being said, it's still nice to think where we'd like to go with this down the road; we have a lot of relatives with whom we'd love to share this, so that means we'd like to eventually edit it and output it to DVD to sharing. Thinking about what will be the most likely medium when we really start sharing this with the extended family (think 5+ years from now and then some), I'm guessing that most folks will probably have some form of 16x9. I have some other questions about post-production workflow, but that's for a later thread.
So... I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on shooting 24pA (versus 24pN or 60i) and anamorphic (versus 4:3; I'm not considering *shooting* letterbox, but could always postprocess 4:3 with letterbox). I've read Barry Green's very helpful book on the pros and cons of both these issues, and I'm aware that it's been discussed widely here (and I've read those threads).
As far as 24pA is concerned, I'm not ever broadcasting or transferring to film (obviously), just doing final output onto DVD (or whatever technology might come along a few years later), but I can make sure that I have access to NLE software that will handle the 2:3:3:2 pulldown whenever I finally post-process, and then work in a 24p timeline, so I'm guessing that this alone should probably imply that I use 24pA. Further, since there will be so little movement on screen (only movement of head, hands, etc.), I should have to worry much less about strobing, such that my limited ability wouldn't wreck 24pA...
As far as 16x9 versus 4x3: I know that I would never be technically competent enough with using anamorphic adapter if I were shooting scenes with much movement, field-work, or any type of continual setup, considering the difficulties with focusing that I've read about. As it is, I'll be shooting the family members with them seated in a controlled environment (both alone and in groups of 2-3 in the individual's living rooms), and I'll be using tripod, calibrated studio monitor (for focusing and color), arri flood lights, etc., and thus _think_ I may just be up for the task.
I've especially been studying Barry Green's tutorials for working to get the shallow depth-of-field, which I desire (I keep repeating: Z99, F2.8, ...); howevery, I've read that shallow DOF is made more difficult by using the anamorphic adapter. Can someone comment more fully on how shallow I'll still be able to get (compared to same environment without using the adapter)?
There's also, always, of course the cost issue with the anamorphic lens, but I don't think there's much other equipment near-term that the money could better go to, so it's more a case of trading cost for resolution. Thoughts still appreciated on value for money...
Also, what do folks think about the relative cinemagraphic feel of these two decisions? I'm looking for a sense of softness and intimacy with the ones I love...
Thanks in advance for your time and insights. They are very much appreciated.
-Daniel
I'm relatively new to posting here, but I've been reading and learning for a while now, and I definitely appreciate the assistance that the veterans here provide to the community as a whole.
I'm working (I use that word loosely---it's a hobby really) on a little "documentary" on my family's background. It's more of an extended series of family anecdotes of grandparents and other older relatives telling their stories with some questions posed to help bring up memories. We're aiming to shoot 30+ hours of raw footage over the coming months, and covering seminal experiences in the "old country", the Great Depression, World War II, school, work, etc... It's proving to be a lot of fun. We've also put alot of time in the pre-production phase, coming up with detailed outlines of key life highlights to encourage conversation (but really just to get folks talking, whereupon we quickly shut up and let their stories unravel on their own), acquiring the right equipment, practicing our (non-existant? / limited?) craft, and spreading the work-load (and correlating it with appropriate skill-set) among younger members of the family (such as yours truly).
We're shooting these stories with cherished individuals who are in their mid- to late-80s, so the only true near-term objective is to capture their stories in raw form while we're still able. We're not really concerned right now with post-production, since we can always do that later: capture is key for now. That being said, it's still nice to think where we'd like to go with this down the road; we have a lot of relatives with whom we'd love to share this, so that means we'd like to eventually edit it and output it to DVD to sharing. Thinking about what will be the most likely medium when we really start sharing this with the extended family (think 5+ years from now and then some), I'm guessing that most folks will probably have some form of 16x9. I have some other questions about post-production workflow, but that's for a later thread.
So... I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on shooting 24pA (versus 24pN or 60i) and anamorphic (versus 4:3; I'm not considering *shooting* letterbox, but could always postprocess 4:3 with letterbox). I've read Barry Green's very helpful book on the pros and cons of both these issues, and I'm aware that it's been discussed widely here (and I've read those threads).
As far as 24pA is concerned, I'm not ever broadcasting or transferring to film (obviously), just doing final output onto DVD (or whatever technology might come along a few years later), but I can make sure that I have access to NLE software that will handle the 2:3:3:2 pulldown whenever I finally post-process, and then work in a 24p timeline, so I'm guessing that this alone should probably imply that I use 24pA. Further, since there will be so little movement on screen (only movement of head, hands, etc.), I should have to worry much less about strobing, such that my limited ability wouldn't wreck 24pA...
As far as 16x9 versus 4x3: I know that I would never be technically competent enough with using anamorphic adapter if I were shooting scenes with much movement, field-work, or any type of continual setup, considering the difficulties with focusing that I've read about. As it is, I'll be shooting the family members with them seated in a controlled environment (both alone and in groups of 2-3 in the individual's living rooms), and I'll be using tripod, calibrated studio monitor (for focusing and color), arri flood lights, etc., and thus _think_ I may just be up for the task.
I've especially been studying Barry Green's tutorials for working to get the shallow depth-of-field, which I desire (I keep repeating: Z99, F2.8, ...); howevery, I've read that shallow DOF is made more difficult by using the anamorphic adapter. Can someone comment more fully on how shallow I'll still be able to get (compared to same environment without using the adapter)?
There's also, always, of course the cost issue with the anamorphic lens, but I don't think there's much other equipment near-term that the money could better go to, so it's more a case of trading cost for resolution. Thoughts still appreciated on value for money...
Also, what do folks think about the relative cinemagraphic feel of these two decisions? I'm looking for a sense of softness and intimacy with the ones I love...
Thanks in advance for your time and insights. They are very much appreciated.
-Daniel
